I first learned of GMOs two years when watching the critical documentary "FoodInc" and really learned about the concerns people had of them. It was apparent that the general nation-wide consensus was against the usage of GMOs, but I did read some very good articles against this argument. Some people believe that GMOs could help solve the world's problem with a shortage of food. Through reading these articles, I agreed with that argument and gained opinions about the benefits of a GMO-lead food industry society. With this being a relevant problem in society and the media today, and considering my opinion is the far minority in the case of this issue, I thought that this would be a good issue to argue. I grew up and am from Lancaster, PA which is dominated by the farm industry. With this being the case, I know many farmers and their opinions on GMOs. From firsthand accounts and personal experience with researching and reading about GMOs, I feel that I am in a position to have a reason to be able to argue the points of GMOs. I am by no means an environmental or dietary expert, but based upon the amount that I have read on this issue, I feel that I am qualified to be able to argue this issue. 

The article focuses on how environmental effects impact the growth ability of a specific microscopic fungus, known as Trichoderma harzianum when attempting to grow on a larger, more common fungus known as Alternaria alternata. What this analyzes as well is the effect that growth regulators have on its ability to grow. The study showed that the growth regulator increased the success rates of the fungal growth in these specific environmental situations, attempting to show the success of the growth regulator.

The study was done in an attempt to research the successfulness of these types of growth regulators when applied to a specific species of a plant. This study was done during the early 2000's, so the specific gain accomplished by this would most likely be an attempt to prove the success and the positives that come from GMOs, but also provide the scientific backing to their study.

There is no specific bias in this study, only the research in an attempt to find exactly what success a genetically-modified species of plant would have in regards to its growth in extreme conditions. This experiment was done on a fungus and by two professional researchers from a major university from Chile. The intent of the study was to find the success, not to prove the benefits.

Genetically Modified Organisms have been invented for the sole purpose of being able to produce more food. The author believes that they benefit society since they allow food to grow in most types of conditions, which allows for more food to be had. With an increase in world population, Genetically Modified technology will be very important within the next several decades. 

The argument made proves the possibility of a major food epidemic and the situation we could be facing without the assistance of engineered foods. The article goes into depths about the reality of this and that the production and usage of this benefits not only the United States but also the world. The argument against not allowing them proves to be for the purpose of setting the argument from the perspective of a researcher.

As a researcher at one of the leading STEM schools in the nation, Rotman's interest in Genetically Modified Organism could be based for desiring the production of these organisms since it could benefit the science community as a whole. His bias is relative in regards to only have the bias for proving the argument, as his background is based specifically from the professional standpoint of an individual who has done research on this topic.

A study done by a French research facility found that GMOs cause tumors in lab rats. The skepticism around this, however, is that if this was the case then there would be a larger percentage of Americans that would get cancer from foods from GMOs. The other skepticism around the study shows the manipulation of the numbers. The control group was significantly smaller than the experimental, leading one to believe that the individual trials could have been selected from many.

The argument made is another spin towards the group of those for the usage of GMOs. The difference here is that it is not arguing for their sake, but arguing against a study done by a French science group as an attempt to prove the risks of GMOs. This source goes strictly against the argument made by those that health effects such as Cancer are a result of the consumption of GMOs.

A journal such as Reuters is composed of many differing opinions, so the case could be made that the sole intent of this was to argue their point that there are no additional health risks involved with consuming Genetically Modified food, of that of the original genome. The credibility is certainly backed up from the professional aspect issued by Reuters.

In reflection on the current accomplished research, the findings of the studies so far prove to the point that there is plenty of differing prospective and background on this topic. This has become a surprisingly controversial issue in not just the scientific community, but also within the general public. The main arguments made are those I am attempting to make in my paper, those being the benefit of GMOs on society and assisting with the problem of a food shortage. The counterarguments state that there are health risks associated with consuming GMOs, and also that they are unethical since GMO companies take old seeds away from farmers and fine them for not utilizing the up-to-date Genetically-Modified ones. The arguments that I have found continue to support the point I am attempting to prove in my paper and will really assist me in the writing of my final paper. The approach to research will not need to be adjusted.

